Views on Science/Scientists/Scientism (Split from Is the MCO Real?)

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, zerostao said:

 

Edit/ I said it before and it remains true that science itself, is a belief systen

 

It is a belief system for the indoctrinated, but for the indoctrinators it is primarily (and often entirely) a power grab system.  

 

All our "life sciences" inherited the tradition they directly arose from -- that of witch hunts, getting rid of ideological competition, gaining both power and money, monopolizing control of people's bodies, calling the shots.  (There's a pun in there.) 

[SodaChanh]

10 hours ago, Taomeow said:

It is a belief system for the indoctrinated, but for the indoctrinators it is primarily (and often entirely) a power grab system. 

 

That is not my experience, having taken a masters degree. 

 

The scientists are pretty humble and have passion for the sciences. One even had a mathematical breakthrough in his dreams. 

[Taomeow]

12 hours ago, SodaChanh said:

 

That is not my experience, having taken a masters degree. 

 

The scientists are pretty humble and have passion for the sciences. One even had a mathematical breakthrough in his dreams. 

 

Your experience does not contradict my statement.  The thing is, there's no such generic thing as "scientists."  I also have a master's (so what) and am a descendant of four generations of Ph.D.s, two of which achieved truly great things in (of all things) agricultural sciences whose positive impact lasts till today.  (No, not pesticides or genetic modifications, nothing of the sort.  Real agricultural science as it used to exist before all that jazz.)   

 

You may want to re-read what I wrote with this idea in mind:  "scientists" and "science" is a profoundly ephemeral concept.  Smoke and mirrors that may hide anyone and anything.  

 

That's the generic everyday use (or rather glaringly wrongful misuse) of the term "science," which (as @zerostao pointed out in the statement I was expounding on) is absolutely equal to a belief system.  We are trained to believe statements we are told originate from "Science."  "Trust the Science" absolutely equals "In God We Trust" -- it's a statement of belief plus a commandment.  Real science has nothing to do with statements of belief and commandments.  And real scientists...  the system is set up to produce very few of those -- and disown, discredit, persecute them if they fail to toe the indoctrinators' line.  But enough tangent.      

[Sanity Check]

12 hours ago, SodaChanh said:

 

That is not my experience, having taken a masters degree. 

 

The scientists are pretty humble and have passion for the sciences. One even had a mathematical breakthrough in his dreams. 

 

 

If you wanted to name a good scientist in 2025.

 

Who would it be?

 

Also if its hard for you to select a name, wouldn't that imply science as an institution is failing?

[SodaChanh]

1 hour ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

If you wanted to name a good scientist in 2025.

 

Who would it be?

 

Also if its hard for you to select a name, wouldn't that imply science as an institution is failing?

 

I know a guy working for the local space institute that I would find a good candidate. No, science is not failing, sorry to disappoint you. 

 

[Sanity Check]

27 minutes ago, SodaChanh said:

 

I know a guy working for the local space institute that I would find a good candidate. No, science is not failing, sorry to disappoint you. 

 

 

 

I think you completely misunderstood the question.

 

Past eras had Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Tesla.

 

Who is a good ambassador for science in the year 2025

 

It seems you cannot name a single name.

 

In which case we might conclude science as an institution is in a decline.

[SodaChanh]

20 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

I think you completely misunderstood the question.

 

Past eras had Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Tesla.

 

Who is a good ambassador for science in the year 2025

 

It seems you cannot name a single name.

 

In which case we might conclude science as an institution is in a decline.

 

Your thinking is wrong, just because I cannot name a person doesn't mean science is in decline. 

 

You do know LLMs? 

 

The breakthrough came from Google. So how can you say science is in decline when machine learning and LLMs have had big breakthroughs? 

[Sanity Check]

1 minute ago, SodaChanh said:

 

Your thinking is wrong, just because I cannot name a person doesn't mean science is in decline. 

 

You do know LLMs? 

 

The breakthrough came from Google. So how can you say science is in decline when machine learning and LLMs have had big breakthroughs? 

 

 

 

The hardware to support LLMs did not exist under recently.

 

It is actually Moore's Law that is driving progress in AI.

 

LLM. Large Library Model. Its simply a bigger library file. 

 

Let's say in the year 1980 a library file for AI was 10 kilobytes.

 

While in the year 2025 a library file for AI (LLM) might be 50 gigabytes.

 

Is that really a major achievement?

 

it is in terms of functionality but there were no improvements in software, its all hardware based.

 

Anyways, are there no good ambassadors for science in 2025? 

 

What a strange thing that is, eh.

[SodaChanh]

2 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

 

The hardware to support LLMs did not exist under recently.

 

It is actually Moore's Law that is driving progress in AI.

 

LLM. Large Library Model. Its simply a bigger library file. 

 

Let's say in the year 1980 a library file for AI was 10 kilobytes.

 

While in the year 2025 a library file for AI (LLM) might be 50 gigabytes.

 

Is that really a major achievement?

 

it is in terms of functionality but there were no improvements in software, its all hardware based.

 

Anyways, are there no good ambassadors for science in 2025? 

 

What a strange thing that is, eh.

 

You have not understood the Transformer architecture from Google? 

 

https://research.google/blog/transformer-a-novel-neural-network-architecture-for-language-understanding/

 

No, not only hardware. 

 

That above paper should puncture a hole in your argument, thus you cannot say science is in decline. 

[Sanity Check]

1 minute ago, SodaChanh said:

 

You have not understood the Transformer architecture from Google? 

 

https://research.google/blog/transformer-a-novel-neural-network-architecture-for-language-understanding/

 

No, not only hardware. 

 

That above paper should puncture a hole in your argument, thus you cannot say science is in decline. 

 

 

Which part of that paper "punches a hole" in my argument?

 

LLM is large library model. Its identical to the small(er) library model that used previously. The only thing relevant about it is its size being larger in contrast to library models of past eras.

 

The same with the chess program that defeated Garry Kasparov. The software was virtually identical to chess programs of past eras. The only difference was the hardware it ran on having more memory and more computational power.

 

 

[SodaChanh]

4 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

Which part of that paper "punches a hole" in my argument?

 

A new research paper comes out. Pretty soon after we have chatgpt with millions of users. 

 

And you are saying science is in decline. What is the logic behind that? 

 

I see denial of things happening. 

 

Science is actually moving forward while you are saying it is decline. 

[Sanity Check]

2 minutes ago, SodaChanh said:

 

A new research paper comes out. Pretty soon after we have chatgpt with millions of users. 

 

And you are saying science is in decline. What is the logic behind that? 

 

I see denial of things happening. 

 

Science is actually moving forward while you are saying it is decline. 

 

 

Eh.

 

In the year 2025, science is disappointing.

 

I think most would agree with me on this.

 

But to each their own.

[SodaChanh]

12 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

Eh.

 

In the year 2025, science is disappointing.

 

I think most would agree with me on this.

 

But to each their own.

 

What is so disappointing? 

 

[Sanity Check]

2 hours ago, SodaChanh said:

 

What is so disappointing? 

 

 

 

https://www.cbs17.com/news/milk-soda-more-hydrating-than-water-according-to-study/

 

Scientists release study claiming soda pop is more hydrating than water.

 

Its almost like they're on a personal quest to make themselves appear unsmartiest.

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, SodaChanh said:

 

I know a guy working for the local space institute that I would find a good candidate. No, science is not failing, sorry to disappoint you. 

 

 

Disconnect his phone and  internet  link ... that'll show him  !      

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

If you wanted to name a good scientist in 2025.

 

Who would it be?

 

Also if its hard for you to select a name, wouldn't that imply science as an institution is failing?

 

I won't name him (due to obvious reasons  .... he works  for NASA ..... he solved a huge problem for them  with a novel insight , he also worked in comms for the navy and had a magical group 'on board '  - they had  magic 'circles' in the  on board satellite dish in its  horizontal position ( officially 'cleaning detail ' ) . he got caught by Captain once  '' I dont know what they hell you are doing in there .... but it  doesnt appear to involve drugs , alcohol or 'homosexual activity '   and your  division seems efficient, well run and  and has no other 'incidents' , so ...... dismissed  .''

 

    

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, SodaChanh said:

 

What is so disappointing? 

 

 

What is disappointing is how he switched from  science as 'failing'   to  being 'in decline '  to  'disappointing ' .    

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

https://www.cbs17.com/news/milk-soda-more-hydrating-than-water-according-to-study/

 

Scientists release study claiming soda pop is more hydrating than water.

 

Its almost like they're on a personal quest to make themselves appear unsmartiest.

 

 

 

That is 'science journalism '   . 

[Taomeow]

The thread this one got split from was about LIFE sciences.  And of course went as those topics always do:

 

1) When someone talks about the problems with LIFE sciences, the self-appointed defenders of science bring up TECHNOLOGY as proof of progress of SCIENCE. 

Technology, indeed, is booming and blooming, but this does not inform one of the state of affairs with life sciences. 

You want to know the state of affairs with their progress that made any positive difference in the lives of live humans?     

The last time life sciences made progress was in the 19th century when they stopped bashing the concept of hygiene and ridiculing and ostracizing surgeons who wanted to wash their hands before performing surgeries.  And no longer put them in lunatic asylums for this crazy idea that infant and new mothers' mortality may have something to do with the fact that they dissect corpses for scientific purposes and then move on to delivering babies without washing their hands.

 

 2) There's countless irresponsible endeavors in current LIFE sciences which the people currently called scientists do JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN, and most of them are extremely destructive to the health and well-being of actual live human beings and all creatures great and small.  The bulk of tangible progress is in weaponized applications.  Purportedly against the potential enemy.  In reality, innocent bystanders who are affected are pretty much everybody on the planet.  

 

3) This extinction-level status quo is entrenched so firmly and the indoctrination runs so deep, and is so all-encompassing, that talking not only with its perpetrators but also with its victims is usually an exercise in futility.      

[Sanity Check]

 

34 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

The thread this one got split from was about LIFE sciences.  And of course went as those topics always do:

 

1) When someone talks about the problems with LIFE sciences, the self-appointed defenders of science bring up TECHNOLOGY as proof of progress of SCIENCE. 

Technology, indeed, is booming and blooming

 

The last time life sciences made progress was in the 19th century  

 

 

 

Aside from random things like lithium batteries there hasn't been much progress in technology either.

 

Try googling "Father of artificial intelligence". The name of a man from the 1940s will pop up. Alan Turing. A huge chunk of AI work was completed around 1940s. The only reason AI didn't become mainstream sooner is due to lack of hardware necessary to make it function.

 

Tech has also been a dead end in terms of innovation and progress.

 

But maybe its ok. It might give our spiritual power a chance to catch up to our scientific power?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jenn]

I feel like we lost the ability for true inspiration, as a species we are supreme at optimizing existing things, but not very skilled at recognizing whether what we optimize is really opportunity we should be pouring all our efforts into or if we should have looked around at all the other potential options before diving single-mindedly into the first idea we find - which usually the one with the most killing or control potentials.

 

But really science and innovation will rarely be truly beneficial because the motivation is corrupt now. We have moved away from solving survival challenges and exploring what is possible and the world around us, to money. If money is the motivation, the results are only ever going to be crappy. Heck you don't even need a good product to make a lot of money, you just need something people will think is good long enough to get investment, build your house of cards, and exit. Speculation is more profitable than the thing being speculated on. 

[Sanity Check]

1 hour ago, Jenn said:

I feel like we lost the ability for true inspiration, as a species we are supreme at optimizing existing things, but not very skilled at recognizing whether what we optimize is really opportunity we should be pouring all our efforts into or if we should have looked around at all the other potential options before diving single-mindedly into the first idea we find - which usually the one with the most killing or control potentials.

 

But really science and innovation will rarely be truly beneficial because the motivation is corrupt now. We have moved away from solving survival challenges and exploring what is possible and the world around us, to money. If money is the motivation, the results are only ever going to be crappy. Heck you don't even need a good product to make a lot of money, you just need something people will think is good long enough to get investment, build your house of cards, and exit. Speculation is more profitable than the thing being speculated on. 

 

 

Most smart kids want to be a lawyer earning $100,000. Rather than a scientist with entry level $30,000.

 

Inventions built in a lab owned by a university or large corporation means they own your creation. While by contrast owning & operating your own independent lab is prohibitively cost ineffective.

 

Given the dubious nature of copyright and intellectual property protection laws, foreign powers might simply steal your invention. Producing at lower cost than you yourself could ever afford to.

 

Everything about markets, higher education and the economy are stifling & unfriendly to innovation / progress.

 

And so people shifted career trajectory and found other things to do.

 

[liminal_luke]

Science is fascinating, so I can´t fault those who make it´s study their life´s work, though there are certainly ethical landmines to be navigated -- and some navigate them with more humility and grace than others.  But I like to think there´s a special place in some unfathomable lower realm for those who know nothing of science themselves but proudly declare "I believe in science" in an attempt to coerce relatives and friends to make a given behavioral choice.  Not that I´m bitter or anything. 

Edited 3 hours ago by liminal_luke

[Cobie]

Don’t deny yourself, let your bitterness rip,   online it’s harmless. Is that ‘science believer’ your annoying brother again?

[Apech]

40 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Science is fascinating, so I can´t fault those who make it´s study their life´s work, though there are certainly ethical landmines to be navigated -- and some navigate them with more humility and grace than others.  But I like to think there´s a special place in some unfathomable lower realm for those who know nothing of science themselves but proudly declare "I believe in science" in an attempt to coerce relatives and friends to make a given behavioral choice.  Not that I´m bitter or anything. 

Science is nice,

and science can stop you,

From doing all the things in life you’d like to.

 

If there’s something you’d like to try,

If there’s something you’d like to try,

Ask me I won’t say no how could I?